Pale colour, good fine mousse. Very light and dry with excellent clean lines. Some wood on the palate with an undertow of hedgerow flowers. Not noticeably aged, plenty of acidity to give it some zip. A stony finish.

LGTrotter wrote:Pale colour, good fine mousse. Very light and dry with excellent clean lines. Some wood on the palate with an undertow of hedgerow flowers. Not noticeably aged, plenty of acidity to give it some zip. A stony finish.

There was even more acidity -- too much for my taste -- until about 2013. Then the acidity integrated, the wine came on song, and my family drank the rest of the case.

Sigh.

LGTrotter wrote:All round excellent champagne, no rush. 93ish.

I don't have enough experience to assign scores out of 100, but that sounds about right ... though of the 2002 Champagnes I like Dom Perignon most.

LGTrotter wrote:Pale colour, good fine mousse. Very light and dry with excellent clean lines. Some wood on the palate with an undertow of hedgerow flowers. Not noticeably aged, plenty of acidity to give it some zip. A stony finish.

There was even more acidity -- too much for my taste -- until about 2013. Then the acidity integrated, the wine came on song, and my family drank the rest of the case.

Sigh.

Shame, as I think this has more to offer. I may have to get some more if I can find it reasonably priced. Mine too was drunk with family (rather than at AbFab).

John Owlett wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:All round excellent champagne, no rush. 93ish.

I don't have enough experience to assign scores out of 100, but that sounds about right ... though of the 2002 Champagnes I like Dom Perignon most.

John

My numerical scores are pretty rudimentary, just an indication that I thought it a few notches up from a very good wine but not quite at the amazing level.
The Dom is, I would concur, a masterpiece. And that too is starting to wake up and shake a leg. Try it, if you can fight off the family long enough to get a taste!